I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

World-wide populations and policymakers are becoming increasingly less sheepish about the existence of a human-caused climate warming crisis. More and more, they’re recognizing that they are being fleeced by wolves in green camouflage that have been pulling wool over their eyes.

Senator John Kerry recently vented frustration about this climate change and what he called “the flat-Earth caucus” of global warming skeptics when he said: “Even amid the ‘Tuesday Group’…a bi-partisan block of lawmakers, mostly Democrats, who are interested in energy issues… you can’t talk about climate now. People just turn off. It’s extraordinary. Only for national security and jobs will they open their minds.”

Egregious ClimateGate and related Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scandals have prompted many to rethink which side of the climate/energy issue “has made up their own science and arguments”. Observable contradictions between actual climate trends and those predicted based upon highly speculative IPCC models support further doubt that economy-ravaging carbon regulation schemes are warranted. Despite elevated atmospheric CO2 levels and alarmist IPCC projections, there hasn’t been any significant warming over the past one and one-half decades. What’s more, many distinguished scientists expect that Earth may be entering a protracted cooling phase influenced by solar and ocean conditions.

Even the IPCC in Chapter 4 of its recent Special Report dealing with disasters and climate change admits that there is no reliable evidence to support alarm. Posing a question to readers “Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?”, it states “[…] None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.”

In other words, they are uncertain about those things they don’t know, most particularly regarding extreme circumstances of unknowing……or something like that. Not being a real climate scientist, I may be missing something in this interpretation.

In any case, uncertainty regarding the magnitude or likely consequences of human climate change influence (either for better or worse), is spreading globally, even in European carbon-capping capitals where two decades of global warming mania are finally cooling.

Poland, together with southern and eastern European allies, is seeking to block efforts of environment ministers and non-governmental organizations to introduce any new, unilateral CO2 policies. They argue that since no global climate agreement is even envisioned until 2015, it would be “premature” to decide on Europe’s future climate policy now. In 2008, member states had agreed to cut carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. The European Commission had drafted a proposal to slash emissions 80% by 2050, essentially prohibiting use of fossil fuels for electrical power generation.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Really? Just how low are Forbes’ journalistic standards and how gullible does it think its readership is? The mere words in the article, the assertions, adjectives, and cherry-picked anecdotes have absolutely no weight compared to the multiple independent calculations using very standard models and physical laws. These have a calculated degree of uncertainty that is extremely low, low enough that all other hypotheses have been eliminated. Name calling and ad hominem arguments have no effect on the results. What you need is to find entirely new laws of physics as an alternative to the ones that are in use, and which have a better fit to the data. We are far past the point where wishful thinking about calculation errors or conspiracies involving most scientists have any relevance to public policy.

And of course you have genuine expertise in climate science and have done original research to show that the vast majority of real climate scientists who do research and publish are wrong. Right?

The physical properties of greenhouse gases that enable them to absorb and reemit thermal energy have been known for over 150 years. This tiny amount of trace gases keeps Earth about60 degrees F warmer tha it would be without them. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times. So of course you are going to explain why the increase in greenhouse gases is NOT increasing global temperaures. Right?

“So of course you are going to explain why the increase in greenhouse gases is NOT increasing global temperaures. Right?”

Earth is below current GAT and below average levels of atmospheric co2. Therefore, you cannot attribute the minor increase in greenhouse gases to the temperature increase over 150 years of 288.0 kelvin to 288.8 kelvin, earth has already done this naturally, how do you compare?

Are you a meteorologist? So what gives you the expertise to understand the weather forecast?

Your argument is oft repeated and utter nonsense. Assuming that you think that it’s acceptable for a normal person to understand the daily weather forecast, I’d also assume that you’re happy for a normal person to understand the 10 day or monthly forecast as provided on sites like weather.com? So how about seasonal forecasts or decadal forecasts? At what point do you think that you suddenly need a degree in climate science to be able to understand information presented in exactly the same format?

Economart, your question shows that you don’t understand the basic science. CO2 doesn’t create its own heat. CO2 and other greenhouse gases only absorb thermal energy, then reemit it. The greenhouse gases absorb this energy rising from Earth, preventing it from leaking out into space, and remit it in all directions, including back down toward Earth. Preventing heat from leaving Earth, not creating heat, is what greenhouse gases do to keep Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. The thermal energy rising from Earth that greenhouse gases absorb is caused by radiant energy from the sun warming Earth. So it’s the sun that is the ultimate heating engine. As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, more thermal energy is prevented from leaking out into space and is redirected down toward Earth’s surface, trapping more heat. This explains why there are no magical CO2 heat generators.

If CO2 were to encase a furnace, a house, or some warmed object, would it not absorb the escaping energy and heat up the object to a greater temperature than it already had? Is this not what the 380ppm of CO2 is doing presently to the earth, heating up its land masses and oceans to a greater degree than the sun had?

So if CO2 is the magical heat source, which can warm up objects to a point far greater than other sources, then WHERE ARE ALL THE CO2 HEAT GENERATORS?